Ah, the old “Which caliber is best?” debate.
I know, I know, I’m opening up a huge can of worms even bringing it up, but you were going to bring it up in conversation with someone soon anyway, weren’t you? So why not look at the subject again to get a different viewpoint and to see if what you’ve been thinking already is right?
That’s how I tend to approach things like this: I’d rather be corrected, if appropriate, than confirmed in my mistaken thinking.
Or I’ll sometimes say it this way: “I’d rather be right than right.”
However you say it, it really is important that we work to make sure that the data that we use and the arguments that we make for our positions on important issues are based on good information and solid, in context data.
Which is one of the things that I really like about how Dr. Chris Raynor approaches what we’re going to be talking about today: Is .223 or 9mm more effective as a self-protection ammunition?
His answer is that… it depends. On a number of factors, and it’s worth knowing about them so that you can make a good evaluation of which you choose to go with. You can watch his video below.
Now, did you take the time to go through that video?
If not, it really is worth taking the almost 18 minutes to watch it. It’s informative, level-headed, and doesn’t give you simplistic or sensational answers when the truth is more nuanced.
Frankly, there’s a lot to consider here, including what your bullet actually hits in the other person’s body.
Call that accuracy over caliber if you want, though I would argue that, in a gun fight, you’re not terribly likely to be able to intentionally have the kind of accuracy necessary to guarantee hitting a bone with your shot. There’s just too much adrenaline going through your body.
So, while I’d like to say definitively that accuracy beats caliber, the answer is.. sometimes accuracy beats caliber… sometimes not. It really depends on what you hit.
Which is also the answer to the .223 vs 9mm question: It depends.